ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2024
Automated Segmentation of MRI White Matter Hyperintensities in 8421 Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Multi-Modal MRI Segmentation of Stroke Lesions and Corticospinal Tract Integrity for Functional Outcome Prediction.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Review
- Multimodal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Signatures of White Matter Hyperintensities: Mechanistic Insights Into Pathobiological Heterogeneity.Journal of stroke · 2026Review
- Segmentation of Leukoaraiosis on Noncontrast Head CT Using CT-MRI Paired Data Without Human Annotation.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeTo date, only a few small studies have attempted deep learning-based automatic segmentation of white matter hyperintensity (WMH) lesions in patients with cerebral infarction; this issue is complicated because stroke-related lesions can obscure WMH borders. We developed and validated deep learning algorithms to segment WMH lesions accurately in patients with cerebral infarction using multisite data sets involving 8421 patients with acute ischemic stroke. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe included 8421 patients with stroke from 9 centers in Korea. 2D UNet and squeeze-and-excitation (SE)-UNet models were trained using 2408 FLAIR MRIs from 3 hospitals and validated using 6013 FLAIR MRIs from 6 hospitals. WMH segmentation performance was assessed by calculating the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), the correlation coefficient, and the concordance correlation coefficient compared with a human-segmented criterion standard. In addition, we obtained an uncertainty index that represents overall ambiguity in the voxel classification for WMH segmentation in each patient based on the Kullback-Leibler divergence.
resultsIn the training data set, the mean age was 67.4 (SD, 13.0) years, and 60.4% were men. The mean (95% CI) DSCs for UNet in internal testing and external validation were, respectively, 0.659 (0.649-0.669) and 0.710 (0.707-0.714), which were slightly lower than the reliability between humans (DSC = 0.744; 95% CI, 0.738-0.751;
conclusionsWe developed and validated deep learning algorithms to segment WMH in patients with acute cerebral infarction using the largest-ever MRI data sets. In addition, we showed that the uncertainty index can be used to identify cases in which automatic WMH segmentation is less accurate and requires human review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.